May not be what we wanted to happen, but everyone got home safely. That's a win in my book, glad the emergency systems are working as intended.

I wonder what it’s like for the astronauts. One moment you’re sitting in a rocket ready to spend the next six months in space, you’ve said your goodbyes, you’re thinking about what it will be like, what sorts of pictures you want to take, what you’ll say when you make that first phone call home from space... and then ten minutes later you stumble out into the Kazakh wilderness and start scanning the sky for rescue helicopters.

"Months of boredom punctuated by moments of terror."

I imagine you are happily doing 3, maybe 4 G's, then an alarm sounds and suddenly the escape system (or mission control, your the commander) decides you are not going to space after all, adds 10 G's or so to what you are already doing for a couple seconds, then a couple seconds of free fall until the parachutes open, then the final kick when you are about to land.

They had a very bad day.

At least it's not a very long time inside a Soyuz. I don't think I fit inside one.

I think their first indication that something was wrong was that they felt weightless at a time when they should've been experiencing 4g's. Apparently after the abort they still stayed under 7g

Yes. It happened right after they ejected the escape rocket (which is probably terrifying to use), so they used the stage separation mechanism.

That's a much gentler experience, provided the booster doesn't explode.

Jep, the escape system is definitely not a walk in the park. As far as I know, the Soyuz escape system is the only one that was deployed with people inside, in the Soyuz T-10a accident. Suffice to say, the cosmonauts didn't like it very much. They got between 14g-17g for 5 seconds, which removed them 4km downwards from the exploding launch vehicle.

After landing safely (and being badly bruised), they asked for cigarettes and were given shots of Vodka. [1]

[1] http://www.americaspace.com/2013/09/28/we-were-swearing-thir...

addding a little insult to injury, they landed 400km away from their base, in the very middle of god knows where...

"A few hundred miles."

Yea, wonder if they felt disappointed or relieved. Regardless, they are part of a very small club of "astronaut's whose rocket broke during launch and are still alive". I wonder who else is in that club?

The crew of STS-51-F although they aborted to orbit.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-51-F

Here is the broadcast of that mission: https://youtu.be/JSbMs_OnE4c?t=3m8s

Classic, the sensors whose purpose is to ensure that something doesn't kill you, actually become the things that almost kill you.

Apollo 12 crew, if you count a lightning strike taking out the electronics of the vehicle, but not rocket.

https://www.universetoday.com/98484/this-day-in-space-histor...

I honestly cannot think of any such incident happening in all the years of space exploration. Crewed or not-crewed capsule. And I've watched enough documentaries on Apollo and other space programs.

It's the beginning of a very very small, exclusive club, one that will hopefully not be too big.

Learned something new today.

The other Soyuz incident in 1983 was Soyuz 7K-ST No.16L, sometimes known as Soyuz T-10a or T-10-1.

Found below from wiki.

It was an unsuccessful Soyuz mission intended to visit the Salyut 7 space station, which was occupied by the Soyuz T-9 crew. However, it never finished its launch countdown; the launch vehicle was destroyed on the launch pad by fire on September 26, 1983. The launch escape system of the Soyuz spacecraft fired two seconds before the launch vehicle exploded, saving the crew. It is the first case in which a launch escape system has been fired with a crew aboard.

In early US space program, in one of the test flights before Apollo program, a 2 stage rocket failed mid flight. The rocket escape system attached on top of the capsule fired and successfully saved the capsule. But there was no crew in the capsule.

Just watched this PBS special on the US space program. Pretty interesting footage. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jia78xRMTEc

The best part about that Apollo test flight is that it was intended to be a test of the escape system, but it was not intended to involve the rocket exploding underneath the capsule. It ended up being an even better test of the escape system than was planed.

There have been some other, less consequential manned launch failures.

Apollo 12 was struck by lightning during ascent, and only some quick thinking saved the mission.

Apollo 13 suffered extreme vibration in the second stage center engine that nearly tore the rocket apart. (This is unrelated to the more famous problem Apollo 13 experienced later in the mission.) Fortunately the vibrations messed with sensors which caused the engine to shut down, and the launch continued on the remaining four.

STS-51-F lost an engine a few minutes after launch. It was still able to make orbit on the remaining engines, but ended up in a lower orbit than planned.

They mention another Soyuz accident in the article.

Aborted takeoffs and go arounds are generally routine in avaiation right? Surely using an abort mechanism is preferable to killing the passengers and crew. I see nothing wrong with adding some names to the list of people who survived.

I did not mean to come across as saying I want escape systems to not work.

With space launch systems, any use of escape system is dangerous and best to avoid. I think it will be a long time before aborting/escaping from botched space launch and recovery will be as routine as aborted takeoffs and go arounds.

Just to compare the two a bit more: NASA’s requirements for the Commercial Crew program (where Boeing and SpaceX are building capsules to visit ISS) is for a loss of crew probability of 1 in 270. Note that this isn’t an abort probability, it’s the probability that everyone dies despite the abort system’s best efforts.

The probability for commercial airliners is something around 1 in 100 million.

Something similar happened with another Soyuz in 1983, right?

The Soyuz T-10-1 launch in 1983, maybe? The escape system launched minutes before the explosion on the launching pad happened.[0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_7K-ST_No._16L

2 to 6 seconds before the explosion, not minutes.

> I wonder what it’s like for the astronauts.

It is better to be on the ground wishing that you were in orbit, than to be in orbit wishing that you were on the ground.

I would not be surprised if the astronauts go into a launch fully expecting a malfunction, even though the soyuz hasn't had a failure since 1983 if wikipedia is to be believed.

The reason astronauts are trained so much is so that they know what to do in case of equipment malfunction. So, yes, they all go into launches hoping that everything will work, but being ready when it doesn't.

All that training in fluent, technical Russian, as the manuals haven't been translated.

The spaceship wasn't on a launch which involved failure, since 1983. Soyuz rocket fails once every few years. Just the crewed launched were lucky (and also crewed rockets are checked better + in many cases, older, lower performance, but better tested AND downrated for increased reliability, mods were used).

For example, Progress ship (very close in design to Soyuz ship, unmanned ship to deliver supplies, not recoverable) failed less than 2 years ago due to launcher failure.

Crewed rockets are Soyuz-FG, other rockets used to be Soyuz-U, then Soyuz-2, variations Soyuz-2.1a and Soyuz-2.1b . Those are slightly different rockets - mainly engines of first stage (four booster parts) are different (if I'm not mistaken) and 3rd stage is different.

I suspect they've mentally prepared for far worse outcomes. Space is cool, but the Kazahk wilderness sure beats the third option.

There are more than 500 people visited the space. Not many people experienced the rocket failure and lives to tell about it.

The Challenger and the Columbia both had catastrophic failures during launch and re-entry respectively. Of course those were shuttles and not rockets, but still as far as space flight goes, the statistics were against them.

The Challenger crew is thought to have to survived the initial explosion[1], though how long they would have remained conscious is questioned. The collision with the ocean is what killed them, not the explosion.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disas...

Worth noting: launch escape tower was jettisoned nominally moments before the failure. Escape was via the capsule separation mechanism followed by ballistic then parachute descent. If the booster had exploded, the crew would have been in extreme danger.

Boosters don't really "explode". When ruptured they burn really fast, but (assuming engine shutdown and non-malfunctioning capsule separation) at such high altitude there is not that much danger from simple conflagration.

Sure, in _very_ rare case engines might not shut down or something else might get broken, but "If the booster had exploded, the crew would have been in extreme danger." seems too over the top. Launch escape tower is jettisoned for a reason ...

Was jettisoning the escape tower at that moment planned, or was that a failure?

Normal the tower is used for launch pad abort and for a very short window afterwards.

The Soyuz launch abort system is actually quite robust probably the best launch abort system that has been implemented for manned flight so far with the Orion and Crew Dragon only marginally improving on it and even that is still not clear given those haven’t been flown yet alone actually used in practice yet.

It hasn't flown any missions, but Crew Dragon has had its launch pad abort tested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcHD9AmkxA0

Yes, but there is a difference between being tested and being used. On paper the Crew Dragon launch abort system is slightly better since it doesn't rely on an escape tower for launch pad abort but in reality it's not clear how much better and safer for the crew the whole thing would be.

I'm not sure if having eight high-pressure hydrazine engines (which must work in perfect sync) inches apart from the crew is safer than a classic launch escape tower with a single solid booster on top.

Do other types of rocket engines not need to be in perfect sync?

A classic launch escape system doesn't. It has several exhausts, but it's a single booster.

The original plan for Crew Dragon was to have it land with rockets like a rocket should, instead of with parachutes. They also wanted to have a design that could also land on Mars. Safety first NASA didn't allow that plan. Not sure if rockets are still powerful enough to do a powered landing coming from orbit. I hope so and that tourists will have the option of returning that way even if NASA astronauts don't.

They will not develop powered landing. SuperDraco or not, one of the main obstacles was the difficulty and risk of putting legs through the heatshield.

Smaller Dracos are used for in-orbit maneuvering. SuperDracos are now solely for launch abort. They could conceivably be used for an orbital maneuver requiring more delta-v than the fine-tuning the Dracos do, but at this point the only likely destination for Dragon is the ISS.

One advantage is that you avoid having to jettison the escape tower which would add some complexity and risk.

Also, the engines are designed for use in space during a normal mission and to be recovered. So in that configuration the crew would still need to be located close to a hydrazine thruster as a part of a normal flight.

> eight high-pressure hydrazine engines (which must work in perfect sync)

There's eight for redundancy, it's a fault-tolerant system.

There are 8 independent engines, IIRC, mounted two by two. I think they are controlled in pairs, one on each side of the craft so as to avoid an engine on one side not knowing its counterpart on the other side failed and forcing the capsule to spin instead of fly away from the faulty booster.

Orion has also done a pad abort test, for what it's worth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j68mszdhTmY

Why does Lockheed's official video look like it was filmed by my uncle on his VHS camcorder?

Looks like someone is recording a video feed broadcast via a projector onto a dark wall with a cellphone or camera. Probably a cellphone from 8yrs ago.

Off-topic, but, a cellphone from 8 years ago is the iPhone 4. Isn't that crazy to think about?

We're way off topic at this point. I think the iPhone 4's video quality would be better.

Regardless it's a video recording of a video being projected onto a wall. The cellphone quality is the least important part of my comment and has improved dramatically in quality on the average smart over 8yrs (iPhone tends to be leading edge and that phone was brand new at the time which not everyone has).

Planned (nominal). See here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIxkVAXPYPc&t=134

It's so bizarre that in NASA-speak the word nominal means not the value that a parameter should have ("in name") but the fact that the parameter is within a specified tolerance of that value. It's like a contraction of "<value> is what it should be, according to its formal definition". https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/184876/how-did-n...

SNAFU, so to speak.

Cheesy aviation idiom: "Any landing you walk away from is a good landing, any landing you can use the plane again is a great landing."

I agree. Knowing and trusting the fail safes is a good thing.

I guess I've watched too many movies and TV shows where "activating the failsafe" means everyone gets killed.

YOU WILL NOT GO TO SPACE TODAY https://xkcd.com/1133/

Commercial Crew might be moved forward a bit. SpaceX claims to have hardware ready and be prepared for a December launch, but that was pushed to January due to conflicting visiting vehicles. Obviously the visiting vehicle schedule will be reworked during the investigation, so that might open up a window for them to launch in December.

Here's Chris Hadfield (someone who has flown on this spacecraft before) discussing the event:

https://twitter.com/Cmdr_Hadfield/status/1050356573703262210

"The three people... on the space station, they are basically marooned there."

What? They have their own Soyuz capsule, they have means to return to Earth on a very short notice, why Chris need to call it this?

The ISS isn't capable of being ran unmanned for any significant length of time. Yes they could escape in an emergency, but they're not going to be leaving "normally" until their replacements can arrive. And that won't be for a while, because as Chris explains in the video, there are no other launch vehicles ready to go beside the Soyuz, and it might be a while before the defect is identified and fixed.

They can't outstay the orbital lifespan of the capsule currently docked. They'll be leaving when it's time to leave (unless a new (empty) Soyuz is launched to replace it (something that has happened once before)).

Yeah, from what I understand, the options are basically to either get a new return vehicle up there before December, or abandoning the station.

It's a bad situation to be in. The end of ISS is certainly an option. I don't think they'll ever let astronauts stay there with an expired return vehicle.

They might be willing to stretch it a little (but probably not much). The limiting factor is decomposition of the hydrogen peroxide used as propellant for the descent module. They can technically get down without it, but it would be a rougher (and riskier) ride.

I wouldn't be excited to return to Earth in that particular Soyuz

It's the only one there. The current crew will be using it to return to earth at some point. The manufacturing defect is in a portion of the spacecraft that is jettisoned before reentry anyway.

The hole is drilled in the orbital compartment of the Soyuz, not in the landing capsule. If you don't forget your spacesuit - which you shouldn't forget anyway - you're reasonably safe.

"reasonably safe"

To be reasonably safe in space is a rather good measure... I do see your point though.

Yeah, he even goes on to say that later....

This may prove very problematic. The next crew launches are scheduled for December, April and July.

Assuming that an investigation takes a year, that means a lot of missed flights and no way to reach the ISS until Boeing/SpaceX are ready.

What does this mean for people at the ISS? There are definitely people there now, right? I'd imagine this doesn't change their schedules for return?

The current deadline for their return is the on-orbit lifespan of their return capsule. It's possible that grounding "crewed" flights doesn't mean grounding all flights. An uncrewed capsule could be sent up (they dock autonomously), and the missions of the on-station crews could be extended. Something similar has been done in the past due to a suspected fault in the on-orbit capsule.

What a world we live in that we have space capsules that can dock autonomously....

The Russians have done it since the beginning of space capsules.

> It's possible that grounding "crewed" flights doesn't mean grounding all flights

This is what I figured / assumed but I didn't want to act like I actually knew as basically everything I'm saying is an assumption. Thank you!

One of the ways you can land a Soyuz is basically an uncontrolled crash land. It is so dependable compared to any other spaceship that I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes an emergency return capsule, after it stops being the main spaceship used to reach the ISS.

It already is.

There are currently 3 people in space [1] and they are there for 127 days on the ISS.

Serena Auñón-Chancellor

Alexander Gerst

Sergey Prokopyev

1 : https://www.howmanypeopleareinspacerightnow.com

Their Soyuz capsule is the one with a drilled hole in it, though there's no indication that will affect descent.

https://spacenews.com/nasa-plays-down-soyuz-investigation-co...

It's like the space equivalent of fielding a fleet of shitboxes as your daily driver(s).

One Soyoz has a hole. The other Soyuzes won't run because safety. You scrapped the shuttle a few years ago. You haven't finished assembling your SpaceX project car yet. Little Jimmy is going to have to hold the flashlight for daddy while he fixes a shitbox so mommy can get to work in the morning (metaphorically speaking of course, because space).

This seems deeply unfair and dismissive of the accomplishments of the people who built Soyuz. Soyuz is a proven reliable spacecraft, it’s not a shitbox.

Who is little jimmy or daddy in this analogy? Why can’t mommy fix her own car? I don’t see the connection to human spaceflight.

> Soyuz is a proven reliable spacecraft, it’s not a shitbox.

I was going to say... It might not be flashy and shiny and new but what else is really important when you are doing space travel? Personally I'd rather have the indestructable, boxy, non-aerodynamic 1995 Jeep Cherokee and its inline V6 engine than some brand new "2.4L Tigershark® MultiAir® 2 I4 Engine with Electronic Stop/Start (ESS) Technology".

All of those adjectives / descriptors after the "2.4L" look and sound nice but beside looking fancy is there any merit to them being added? Most people in and around the Jeep car scene / motor heads / people with decent car knowledge KNOW that Jeep's Inline V6 was nearly indestructible. They lasted forever when properly maintained (regular oil changes, fluid changes, and tune ups) and could take loads of abuse. Most other things in and on the car would wear out and/or burn out (things like electronics) before the engine and transmission would even become an issue at all.

That said, in 2018, there are lots of reasons a 1995 Jeep Cherokee isn't the ideal car. Namely gas mileage, lack of aerodynamics, weight and weight distribution (materials and generally being overweight), and so on. Even knowing all of that I'm sure if paying for gas wasn't a major issue lots of people who had Jeep Cherokees in the past would love to have a properly running one again for one simple reason:

Reliability and dependability. What else really matters? I'd definitely trade in the offset in cost at purchase time for a gas guzzler if the cost winds up the same or the scale even tilts toward the Jeep if you consider all of the upkeep and maintenance costs included, after purchase, for another vehicle.

The Soyuz, if nothing else, is extremely reliable. If I were an astronaut that's the main thing I'd be worried about and if I had any say it'd be the one thing I absolutely required -- for obvious reasons.

What a metaphor. Thanks for making me imagine space Ladas.

the hole is not on a part that comes back to earth.

wow, interesting investigation. reminds me of this scene from the movie Innerspace https://youtu.be/hnj0lYvWYHo?t=133

Thank you so much, drinchev!

It might; at least part of them. I presume they have contingency plans for exactly this situation. Probably leave a skeleton crew up there until either a new crew can be launched or the station has to be abandoned (supply missions are probably not a problem, but the Soyuz return capsules have a limited ”shelf life”).

They have a single return capsule there. They can't leave anyone without a return/rescue boat, so they all have to return together and leave the station empty. And as you said they can't extend stay for a year because Soyuz has limited life.

Oops, right, they’re in the middle of crew change and there’s only three of them and one Soyuz up right now. That does complicate matters.

Isn’t that Soyuz the one with the patched hole?

the hole is in the orbital module that gets ditched before reentry so it's not a problem

You really hope that is the only defect. Considering inspection missed this, what else did they miss?

"skeleton crew" unfortunate term.

My bet is that they'll send the next Soyuz without crew.

A lot of research that will have to be postponed or scrapped :(

April is SpaceX crew launch.

Delayed again - SpaceX is now at June 2019, and Boeing at August.

https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2018/10/04/nasas-comme...

Those delays were to accommodate the station's schedule. It's possible this event may lead to an "undelay"

ISS scheduling is responsible for at most one month of that slip - DM-1's capsule will be ready in December, and was set to launch NET January because of station availability.

Given that it's currently mid-October, moving up a month from January to December represents a pretty substantial chunk of the remaining time (I'm not suggesting NASA or SpaceX are willing, able, or interested in doing this, but it's not impossible)

Depends on your baseline. Compared to their projected crewed launch of June, it's well within the margin of delays.

Did you know that Douglas G. Hurley launches with Dragon 2 and he was also on the last STS flight? Nice continuity.

That's made my day a little brighter - thanks!